Well, Jack Black's Jesus trotted out a very tired argument about Old Testament interpretation---that is, that Christians rely solely on the Torah, while "ignoring" other aspects of the Torah like dietary laws. It's a bogus argument for many reasons but it plays really well with nonbelievers.

The "shellfish is an abomination" counter-argument that Jack Black/Jesus trots out is a fallacy.

There are two very different words in the Hebrew bible. One is used for shellfish in Leviticus 11, and a different one is used in Leviticus 18. The King James version didn't distinguish them, but more modern translations and scholarship do. The ESV, for example, consistently translates "abomination" to refer to sexual and idolatrous practices that are forbidden (Lev 18) and "detestable" for unclean foods (Lev 11).

Even just thinking of the context, the unclean animal laws of Lev 11 are not "moral" in nature, and define Jews from everyone else. They are about cleanness. If you touch a dead pig (say, by accident), you have to WASH.

Lev 18 deals with moral rules for Jew and alien sojourner alike. It includes not sleeping with uncles and not burning infants alive to Molech. You commit those sins and Israel has criminal penalties including death.

Why anyone would trust the biblical scholarship of a Hollywood musical is an interesting side question.

There was a young faggot named Bloom,Who had a lesbian up to his room.They spent the whole night,In a terrible fight,Over who would to what, and to whom.

Sorry to disappoint you, folks, but as a general rule people who mock Christians and the bible ... don't know either very well.

Consequently they zero in on the tiny minority of what I call "wooden literalists." These are your six-24-hour-day creation folks. And when Jesus says "I am the door, I'm sure they look for hinges."

If they're not intentionally avoiding thoughtful Christians who find manifold justifications for a non-wooden literal interpretation of the bible ... then they're so ignorant of Christianity that their comments have quite little value.

There are quite a few problems with it. I'll point out three; pduggie has picked up on another.

1. The Old Testament isn't the only place where sexual immorality in general, and homosexuality in particular, is addressed; so even for Christians that have an oversimplified "ignore the Old Testament" approach, sexual purity is still within their purview.

2. Specifically where the OT dietary laws were concerned, there is explicit discussion in the New Testament (e.g., the book of Acts) that they have been set aside.

3. The OT laws instituted penalties for certain sins that would easily be considered unduly harsh by today's standards, including stoning for sexual immorality (adultery, homosexual sex, beastiality). There are a variety of approaches to explain why such penalties are not practiced today: Gentiles were never called to the Mosaic covenant, for instance; Jesus himself bore the penalties of sin; etc. But none of those arguments change God's opinion of the sin itself. That which was an abomination in the OT is still an abomination in the NT.

And is there really any shortage of arguments against literal interpretation of the Bible?

If you think the Bible is bogus, don't follow it---and feel free to convince people that the Bible is bogus. It is silly, however, for someone who really doesn't believe in the divine inspiration of scripture to try and convince someone who does that they're "off" in their interpretation in this or that aspect. Come on, man, you think the whole thing's bullshit, just say so!

It's not just a matter of honesty but also effectiveness. All a Bible-believer has to do is to talk to someone reasonable knowledgeable about these arguments and they'll be cleared up. They're likely to be predisposed to assuming Jack Black doesn't know what he's talking about, so the slightest bit of confirmation of that fact will suffice.

I once heard Camille Paglia speak about gays who wanted to change the Catholic church to be more accepting of their lifestyle. She just didn't get it, and thought it was frankly silly that someone would want to be a part of the club that didn't approve of what they were doing. I wonder what she would think about this fellow.

I think gay marriage will happen. I mean, I think the term is oxymoronic, like government efficiency, but there you go. Prop 8 didn't pass by an overwhelming majority, far smaller than the previous proposition, so the trend is there. And as dumb as Gavin Newson's little celebrations speech proved to be strategically, it did contain a bit of truth... as California goes, so goes the nation, eventually.

My family, bless 'em, send me Christian messages all the time. I glance at them and they usually go straight to the trash. I'd much rather they inform me of the contents of their hearts directly, that's always so much more interesting to me than the fluff they circulate among a list of addresses.

Didn't watch the video, I can imagine it well enough, the comments, though, were surprisingly hostile. This alarms me. It caused me to dress warmly and to set off for a walk, which to tell the truth, would have happened anyway, then return and produce and consume a standard Cobb salad, with the most extraordinary vinaigrette made with lemon, left-over home-made cranberry relish, ginger from a jar, and Dijon style mustard.

I won't hold my breath, but I still think that the pro-gay marriage side of things would get farther by seriously talking about marriage, traditional marriage and its value to the community than by attacking those who take marriage seriously.

Making fun of opponents doesn't only make fun of their attitudes toward homosexuality, it makes fun of their concerns about the way marriage has and is deteriorating in our culture.

The idea that SSM is an attack on marriage is not an idea that is made from whole cloth, if SSM is seen in the context of and as an extention of the free-love movement of the 60's. People say, "how does my marriage threaten you?" and while marriage doesn't, the people pushing it very much do, and often deliberately so.

Marriage has been attacked as essentially abusive to women. The idea of *fidelity* before and after marriage is attacked in a variety of ways. It's not just homosexuality that we're supposed to accept, it's promiscuity.

Marriage is about giving up sole claim to yourself and your desires to work through life with someone else (who is doing the same.) Free-love and me-first and whatever-I-want-NOW are actively destroying the concept of anything resembling a union of two into one. That's why it's called a *union*.

Also, the idea that children are hurt by divorce and that single parenthood is not equal to having two parents is *definitely* something to put on JAC's list. The Truth That Must Not Be Named.

Making a really big deal about affirming the fact that marriage is under serious attack in our culture would go a long way to supporting the argument that "my marriage doesn't threaten yours."

Homosexuals should be loved and not hated. However I think the same sex marriage push is simply a call out to Christians by the homosexuals wanting a fight like the Jack Palance character in the old western Shane. Lets see how much love comes back to Christians from the gay Jack Palances who have started this effort to show their new found power in a Post-Christian culture. The christians are now looking for a leader to defend their world view who does not run from a fight, even if they have to take a woman from Alaska to find a leader who is not an Amish/Quaker type Christian. McCain used her. Maybe she will be used again, and that's ironic because most Christian men still resist a women in leadership.

I won't hold my breath, but I still think that the pro-gay marriage side of things would get farther by seriously talking about marriage, traditional marriage and its value to the community than by attacking those who take marriage seriously.

What does this even mean? That pro-gay marriage people should spend more time sucking up to wingnut bigots than attacking them? Sounds like a plan!

I just can't tell how responsive your points are to Black's musical, not having seen it.

Well, one of the "Christians" asks Jack "Jesus" Black if the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination: to which he says, yes, but it also says the same thing about this shrimp cocktail. Then he mentions some of the other weird things in the OT and suggests the Christians just "pick and choose."

That may be true; heck, it is true. But I really don't think their point was to encourage Christians to return to stoning adulterers and unruly kids.

For the young, not-so-young and merely curious, and for all those persons desperately wanting some good-natured parody of a French-Canadian stereotype . . . here . . . for your viewing pleasure, is “Bonanza Bunny.”

Doyle, you don't want to listen. I understand that. What I meant was clear... marriage is under overt attack by people who want to destroy traditional morality, including marriage, as symbols of patriarchal oppression and whatever else.

Marriage *is* under attack in our culture. That may not bother you, but it bothers some people very much.

I get the idea that you, like a whole lot of those who favor giving homosexuals the right to marry, really see no *value* in marriage at all. So give something away that isn't worth anything... it costs you nothing to give worthlessness to people. It's a word, nothing more, and why get so upset about a meaningless word unless you're a homophobic hater, eh?

It's because you see NO value in marriage that you can see NO reason other than hatred to try to shore up this traditional institution.

And that goes for a whole lot of people who can imagine no reason whatsoever other than hate to oppose same sex marriage.

You don't see marriage as threatened in this culture because it has no value anyhow... it's not alarming that the divorce rate is what it is, or that mothers and fathers (and in my experience it's usually mothers, frankly) leave their spouse and subject their children to a split childhood when the only thing that was wrong with their marriage is that it wasn't fun, or maybe they met someone who was new, and our culture has told them that marriage is worthless, so toss it, and children are FINE when their parents go their own ways, just dump what the other partner was trying to build with them and go. He finally finished paying for your college, or you met a guy who made you feel young... so you've got children together? And we're supposed to accept this because we didn't want to make a woman who was abused *feel bad* for rightfully taking herself and her children out of that situation?

You think this has nothing to do with why some people are really and sincerely worried about marriage in our culture?

You think that gay people who *want* marriage and would like it to *mean* something when they get it can't express support for marriage and support for trying to stem the tide or even turn it without it being a case of "sucking up to wingnut bigots?"

And you wonder, you really wonder, why someone would see SSM as an attack on marriage.

Maybe I'm wrong. I operate on the assumption that a good portion of those homosexuals who want to be married want to be *married*. Maybe even most of them. Even if some activists clearly just want to stick it to the Christians, I figure they're the obnoxious minority.

High School Musical: Mock the Christian RetardsorFootloose 2: A Judy Garland Weddingwould have been funnier.

It's cute and sophomoric, but is it really meant to change someone's mind?No. It's meant to mock their adversary; it's pablum for the elite, to feel better about their worldview than the damned blacks and christianists.

msg: You always trot out the Bible and everything you apparently think you know about what God or Jesus thought about almost everything.

Can you tell me the first time anything about "homosexuality" appears in the Bible, who said it and how it relates to gay marriage or their rights as citizens of the United States of America?

The only actual mention of homogenitality or homosexual sex was within the context of rape, prostitution, and abusive sexual encounters. (www.truthsetsfree.net)

Sodom and Gomorrah certainly do not pertain to homosexual sex and as far as I know nothing about it appears in the Old Testament at all...which I would assume would give pause to the entire notion of God's true message.

I'm fine with gay marriage. What about one man and three women? One woman and three men? One man, two women and one 16 year-old with her parents' permission? Take a combination. Does it have to be only two?

Is it only the question of consent or must we find a solid, angry, politically strong group of the others. How much of this is just political correctness making gay marriage boring.

Michael: you're going to point me to a Bible revisionism site like truthsetsfree to bolster your claims? Come on. The overwhelming consensus of Christian scholarship, both Catholic and Protestant, agrees that homosexual sex is sinful---as is all extramarital sex. And a Bible study written by a 21-year old college student is your foundational evidence?

THE ex-wife of Art Shamsky claims the Mets legend gave her a sexually transmitted disease after repeatedly cheating on her with both men and women.

In a sordid lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Kim Shamsky says that during their 13-year marriage the famed outfielder and first baseman "engaged in acts of adultery with both men and women," without her knowledge. His romps included "acts of 'unprotected' sexual and deviate sexual intercourse," according to the suit.

The court papers state that Kim, suspecting her hubby was fooling around, submitted to a number of medical tests. After one examination, she was informed by her doctor she had contracted the human papilloma virus (HPV). Medical experts say HPV can cause problems such as genital warts and cervical cancer.

The suit claims Shamsky continued to have sex with her although he "knew that an individual or individuals with whom he had engaged in sexual relations had contracted HPV or that he had contracted HPV."

Hey buddy good luck. Better get that checked. I hear the Giants players can hook you up with a doc that is pretty discreet.

The stupid thing about the video is that the conservatives are "convinced" to support gay marriage in the end because it means more money. Heaven forbid they change their minds because gays are actually equal human beings.

Once again, those leading the fight for marriage equality have the message all wrong. And we wonder why we lost on Prop 8.

I don't have a problem with that, really, and there really isn't anything in scripture that prohibits marriages of more than two people. Plus, there is a whole lot of historical precedence for marriages of more than two people.

I don't understand why pro-SSM people have kittens every time someone mentions polygamy. (Granted... the polyamorists I know are generally talking about a second husband.)

Scripture fairly clearly *recommends* a marriage of two people... if you must marry at all.

I think I could see Paul's advice that it's better to marry than burn applied reasonably (in doctrinal terms) to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

Synova said...(Gays want the same rights as everybody else.) "So do polyamorists."

Oh, great argument.

So now you're comparing people who like to screw around with more than one partner to gays who want to get married? (Isn't that one of the reasons gays want to get married? To dissuade others from doing just that?)

OK, Michael, so you believe the Bible is bullshit. Then what's the point of even citing the truthsetsfree.net guy? You fell into the same trap that Jack Black and his cohorts did. Just call it like you see it, and be done with it.

But why waste any breath whatsoever convincing a Christian that the Bible doesn't say what they think it does about homosexuality when in fact your real beef is that they believe it wholesale in the first place?

No. Nor did any of my father's eight siblings get divorced. All of my mother's two siblings got divorced.

Know people who have been divorced?

Yes. And none for what would have been legally cause for divorce when such a thing was necessary to prove. No spouse or children abused. The cheaters were usually the ones who left (as opposed to leaving someone cheating on you.) As often as not the person who left only did so after they found a replacement.

I also know people who have just skipped the getting married part because they believed the feminist tenet that one doesn't need a man, even if one wants a child, and so she found a "donor" and found out that the destructors of marriage lied and never warned her that a child came with a host of grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins and various "in-laws" who all felt they had a claim on HER child and she found that her PLAN to make a nice little family of her and her baby now included the baby's father, who was a friend, and she didn't *dare* exclude the extended family because they cared not at all for her PLAN and she feared they'd take the boy if she tried to deny them.

I didn't watch it but I'll wager it didn't mock the 77% of blacks who voted for Prop 8.

Or the Mooslims either.

Gays are not getting any points for courage in this endeavor. Cheap shots are Christians might feel good but ... oh heck, let's be direct ... I can hardly wait for the next time I get to vote against gay interests.

Your argument (as usual) is based on your belief that gays "choose" their lifestyle versus being born as such.

Everyone chooses their lifestyle, Michael; gay or straight. I choose when and where my pecker goes, as do you. What you're so poorly trying to ask about is orientation. And no I really don't think anyone chooses to be gay. But the precise mix of nature and nurture, choice or compulsion, is irrelevant to what the Bible says about sexual acts.

So now you're comparing people who like to screw around with more than one partner to gays who want to get married?

No, Michael. I'm comparing people who sincerely feel that they are wired different than you and I, that they are *born* with the natural preference of forming permanent relationships with more than one other person, to homosexuals who want to get married.

For some reason in my life I seem to meet more polyamorists than gays. Which is weird, I suppose. By and large, those I know seem to be *excessively* prone to setting up very domestic and inter-dependent households. Why is the idea of a legal arrangement threatening?

Synova: "I'm comparing people who sincerely feel that they are wired different than you and I, that they are *born* with the natural preference of forming permanent relationships with more than one other person, to homosexuals who want to get married."

A complete crock. You don't believe a word of that tripe and you know it.

I'm an atheist myself, I suppose, but if I were a Christian I'd feel very much under siege. To a Christian marriage is a sacrement, and I can understand their position that calling a homosexual relationship a "marriage" is a total oxymoron. There ought to be a way that cool heads can get together and arrange for homosexual couples to have the legal rights that married heterosexual couples enjoy (along with the legal miseries, like divorce) without demanding church services and the word "marriage."

As for me, I can contrast the anti-Prop 8 demonstrations with the peaceful civil rights protests pre-1968 I saw and sometimes participated in, and the result is an epic fail for the gay community. I could look at Bull Connor and Gov. Wallace on TV, and read about the exoneration of the murderers of Emmett Till, and I wanted no part of them or that side. And I want no part of a community that thinks it's perfectly okay to threaten a tiny grandmother with violence. People, and I use the term loosely, who would do that do not deserve and will not have my respect. If you want that respect, go earn it. If you want to try to beat some respect out of me, you're welcome to try.

An atheist standing with the Christians. Look what you've gone and made me do!

And yes, I think he Bible is nothing more than great stories other "believers" threw together over a long period of time to shore up what they themselves wanted to believe. (Are you denying the existence or "truth" of other such tomes...that do not correspond to YOUR Bible?)

Everything about this whole event worries me; gay marriage is the least of it. If gay activists--egged on, of course, by the left--keep engaging in this obnoxious behavior, it's going to set gay rights back a generation. At least.

The average person, who doesn't give a shit one way or the other what people do in the bedroom, has enjoyed watching "Queer Eye" or "Ellen", and has a pretty amicable sentiment toward gays, is going to start changing his mind.

Gay marriage was barely on the radar ten years ago, now society is expected to change overnight, and if you're against it, you're a cretin.

I am totally in favor of giving gays rights to marry, but this sort of shallow bullshit is NOT the way to do it. It doesn't take a genius to see that it's utterly counter-productive.

Yes, Michael, I actually believe that it's possible that some people are whatever they need to be to most naturally form polyamorist relationships and others simply aren't, even if they want to be. "Screwing around" is not forming a relationship or bond. Your reflexive bigotry in equating people who "screw around" with people who feel that their essential "nuclear" family unit has more than two people in it is telling.

What it tells me is that gay marriage is political for you, and not at all about the people involved who want to do something more profound than live together or have sex.

Is that your argument against gay marriage?

I'm for gay marriage because I think it would contribute positively to the community. Your fantasy world about what you think others thing and why is your own affair, of course.

Michael, my friend, in answer to your question it doesn't. That's sort of my point. I'm not appalled by homosexual behavior per se. I am appalled by the nastiness bordering on violence that has characterized the response of the gay community to the passage of Prop 8. Somehow I can't picture Mormons threatening violence to gay bars had it passed.

One of the ways (there are others) I use to decide whose side I'll join (if either) is the tactics each side employs. When one side trys to shout down reasonable discussion, when it tries to employ (or threatens to employ) violence, then that's the wrong side. Because if they had the right of it, they could win without these sorts of tactics.

"Gay" community. What a misnomer! Gay used to be a synonym for happy, but there's no one in the videos I've seen that seems particularly happy. You don't seem particularly happy.

I don't understand why pro-SSM people have kittens every time someone mentions polygamy

Because it's a false argument, that opponents of gay marriage reguritate, conflating two completely separate ideas: polygamy and monogamy...There is no discrimination in anti-polygamy laws. It is applied equally as no one regardless of gender or sexual orientation.Laws against same-sex marriage however carve out one class "heterosexuals" who are free to marry a person, and another class "homosexuals" who are not.

I don't live in California so this was just one of those left coast propositions. But Gays really have managed to reinforce the stereotype of drama queens with the way they have gone about whining over this vote. You're not winning over those indifferent to this (like me). Being against this automatically means your homophobic? I don't follow that. And logically, if gays get this right then how does one preclude polygamists? Try a calm reasoned approach and a little patience.

There is no discrimination in anti-polygamy laws. It is applied equally as no one regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

That's not really any different from any other laws about marriage. You can only marry one person of the opposite sex and that person has to not be married to anyone else, not be a relative, not be underage, etc.

The equality argument is weak. NO ONE has a right to marry except in a very narrow set of cases and those cases apply equally to everyone.

The fact that some men are physically attracted only to men and some women only to women doesn't prove they should marry. There are other orientations than homosexual, and they don't count. There's actually a tendency for close relatives, if they haven't been raised together, to feel excessively strong attraction... to fall in love. That's a real *physical* and recognized thing that these people do not *choose* and can not control. Does that negate the rules that say they must not marry? Not at all. (Heck, they don't even get to have sex.)

Of course I'm not arguing that's an argument that homosexuals shouldn't marry. I think they should. It's just not a Right and shouldn't be presented as a Right because *marriage* is not a Right.

And yes, I know that polygamy is used as a slippery slope argument against homosexual marriage. I just don't know why pro-SSM people get so upset about the very idea... like Michael, who thinks it's about "screwing around". There is more Historical support for polygamy and polyandry than homosexual marriage.

I mean... OMG! That Wiccan woman can't have a husband *and* a wife!!! It's teh end of the world!

Of course it's not.

And as much as Michael is prone to Hysterics, polyamorists *do* consider it an orientation... at least those I have talked to do.

ron st.amant said... I don't understand why pro-SSM people have kittens every time someone mentions polygamy

Because it's a false argument, that opponents of gay marriage reguritate, conflating two completely separate ideas: polygamy and monogamy...There is no discrimination in anti-polygamy laws. It is applied equally as no one regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

This bit of unsophistry gets a D-. To me, the question is if domestic arrangements are to be governed by the consent of those arranged, why is that limited to gay marriage? What difference does it make to the law if one's consent comes from being born to be wild, tame or unhinged? Why should gay marriage slide into fashion because it is limited to two? Are there height requirements? Free to be gay; free to be straight; but, not free to be any other consenting arrangement? Eventually, the law will permit it. Let's not pretend there is a rational basis for the distinctions being drawn here.

And, if your best rejoinder is a demand for fellatio, I suggest it be accompanied by a resurgence of lycanthropy.

The arguments for gay marriage and polygamy are entirely analogous, and if one is accepted the other must be also. Marriage derives from the biological fact that in our species reproduction depends on a union of *TWO* *DIFFERENT* sexes. If we're going to expand the definition of marriage by disregarding its reproductive origins, then there is no principled reason to drop the *DIFFERENT* and not drop the *TWO*.

If the government is going to endorse homosexuality by redefining marriage, how about a corresponding "warning label"?

Government schools could be required to disclose to students the CDC data on the grossly disproportionate incidence of HIV/AIDS in the US associated with male to male sexual conduct, the studies showing diminished life expectancy for gay and bisexual men, etc.

Schools should be doing that anyway, but since they aren't, perhaps the glbt community could promote it as a trade off.

Others have already said it, but I'll chime in to agree that the Jack Black vid is a bad idea.

The more that the gay marriage movement is aligned with things like making fun of Christians, the more the movement drives away supporters.

For example, I used to support gay marriage wholeheartedly. Now I have mixed feelings on the issue. An endorsement of gay marriage feels more and more like a co-endorsement of mocking religious people and mocking traditional morality because that's what the most vocal elements of the movement are aligning themselves with. I want nothing to do with that, and I won't be associated with it in any way.

Gay marriage must be disentangled from with hostility to Christians. Plus, how lame. Always going after the Christians. Others have pointed it out already, but what about the other groups that stridently oppose gay marriage. We know how the black vote went on Prop 8. As others have also pointed out, how do you think the Muslim vote went down? There's nothing edgy, courageous, or risky about attacking Christians. Attacking them is very much in vogue.

Things like the Jack Black vid make gay marriage proponents look small. Aside from being counterproductive, I'm sure that gay marriage supporters who don't support these tactics loathe the association.

That's when I wondered what the real agenda was behind SSM. It's like Islam; when the supposed live-and-let-live folk start actively and persuasively protesting against the extremists, I'll start parsing them. Until then, no.

Your exact words, and so convenient. Given your lack of specificity and your general poor disposition, there's no reason to assume you were working (unless your Althouse persona is purely a device for being the you that you're too chickenshit to display in the real world, you DON'T interact with "clients"), so the difference between "I was with" and "I was hanging out with" is so minimal that your reliance on it to avoid your embarassing performance in the debate is as ridiculous as you are.

my insinuation that you'd have friends, let alone friends who differ with you, was facetious.

"Suck my dick."

You wish. At least in this thread you're being an asshole about something you have a personal stake in.

The fact remains that you got smoked (I guess you got what you wanted, but from them, not me, and were too stupid to realize it) in the substantive argument because you were arguing bible with people who are actually educated. don't respond by citing a degree you may or may not have; it doesn't matter. you are an ignoramus.

Prop 8 passed because all the blacks who came out to vote for Obama also voted for it. If Prop 8 were running on its own today it would lose. All those people who want gay marriage legal again only have to put their proposition on the ballot at a time when Obama is not running for anything. In the meantime, attacking Mormons and destroying the careers of pro-Prop. 8 people in the entertainment industry doesn't gain them anything.

There are people on both sides who would like to frame this as The Gays vs. The Christians.

I don't accept that framing.

There is no such thing as "The Gays." All gay people don't think alike, any more than all Christians think alike.

The first same sex marriages I knew involved young people who were steeped in church -- pastors' kids who embraced their faith and wanted to embark on their coupled lives blessed by their families and friends in a religious context.

I believe in marriage. It's more than just a piece of paper, and I accept that marriage is endangered by our culture. Some great ideas about marriage and culture can be found embedded in this presentation given by Bill Doherty.

In our recent past, both extended families and the wider culture encouraged (and enforced) the idea that marriage was a life-long union. Today marriage is a temporary contract that can be terminated at will by one party. While it can be abused, there are some good reasons that states adopted no-fault divorce laws, and I don't see them being revoked.

Marriage has been redefined. When Newt and Rudy can marry their affair partners and still be considered standard bearers for what passes as the conservative party, it's hard to make the case that the lesbian couple a block away should not have the benefits of marriage.

I won't be surprised if self-appointed gay activists and their well-meaning Hollywood friends set back the cause, but I am certain that same sex marriage will come to pass.

I don't want this issue decided by the courts, but there's no mechanism that will prevent individual couples from pressing their cases in court. I wish there were a way to compromise -- to set up the civil union option for same sex couples -- but I don't see it happening.

I accept that there are good people who are very much opposed to the idea of same sex marriage. For some, it may be an anti-gay bias, but for many, there is a sense that marriage is already damaged in this culture, and they are afraid that any other changes will just make things worse.

And I also accept that there are some jerks who favor same sex marriage. One of them posts here under the name of Michael.

Marriage has been redefined. When Newt and Rudy can marry their affair partners and still be considered standard bearers for what passes as the conservative party, ...

No. Newt has been relegated to "the think tank guy" because of his disastrous personal life. And Rudy will never be nominated for national office because of his. Neither of those guys will ever be considered a "conservative standard bearer". Well, never again, in Newt's case.